[Accessibility] Meeting minutes DRAFT from 27Oct04

Peter Korn Peter.Korn at Sun.COM
Wed Oct 27 12:12:44 PDT 2004

Gunnar Schmidt
Bill Haneman
Janina Sajka
Alan Wilson
George Kraft
Peter Korn
Earl Johnson
Randy Horowitz

Topics discussed

1. Welcome and Agenda Review

2. Review of minutes

* Minutes from last week approved

3. Action Item Review

	Brief progress reports for open items

4.	Old Business

	January Workshop Preparation:
	Cull Topic List

Janina - the topics list, from the last call, seems to have touched on 80-85% 
of our previous topics lists from the roadmap, etc.

Earl - did you check George's...?
Janina - did not, DSL troubles, saw Bill's response
Bill - was hoping to see George's agenda incorporating fully the topic list
Earl - agreed
George - looking at the outline from Sandy, it looks like we don't have enough 
time in 3 days - only 12 good hours of discussion (lunch, opening sessions, 
etc.), we'd be lucky to get to the main three topics, and so suggests we 
really focus in on the critical issues; what is their roadmap, what will they 
deliver, and keep that scope down and keeping that structured for FSG.  Then 
the fourth day from 8-4pm we talk about anything left to talk about.  This 
could accomodate the whole gamut of topics that come up.
Bill - another thing: the topics we have... we need to be fairly brutal about 
our agenda, and a break from the pattern we've established from the telecons 
of wide-ranging discussions.  Keep the intro comments short.
Janina - no problem with this, and this should inform our invitee list (esp. 
ATVs who aren't familiar with what we're doing).  No space for discussion of 
business model, and how the engineering style is different.
Bill - one challenge we'll have leading up to Jan is providing background info 
to people, and honing our agenda list.  That'll help us select our attendees - 
the most commitment to our short term goals.  Another minor thing: keyboard 
ended up in day 3.  Our original plan was for it to have a single short preso 
at the beginning, and the possibly useful conclusion would be good to share 
with the group early, to fold into the other efforts.
Janina - agrees with kbd on first day.  To start with a success/group furthest 
along, sets us up nicely.  Then George's preso on validation, etc. on the 
first day.  Insight into the rest of our work at the conf.
Bill - one possibility: move the i/o slots out of day 1 and put kbd there. 
Only need the one kbd session.  Thinks we could it in less than 75min, so 
having a 75min slot is good.
Janina - may have folks not up to speed, so...
Bill - is that appropriate?
Peter - we could tell folks at the outside that folks who are new should try 
to get help from individuals at lunch and dinner and such (and better ahead of 
time), and that way blunt such questions.  Maybe also a pre-conference 
orientation session Monday evening?
Sandy - that sounds wonderful, Monday afternoon maybe?
George - Sandy pointed out the mistake that Day 1 is Tuesday; so orientation 
is Mon. evening or some such
Earl - also website materials to help with orientation?
Sandy - a great idea
George - re: the time-slice for kbd, best to have an equal time slice; thinks 
we will wind up eating it.
Bill - I dunno; I guess I'm wondering now...  I was hoping we'd have a roadmap 
for that by the time of the meeting; we would need to figure out how we would 
resource the testing, creation of the automated tests.
?? - what about discussion of the roadmap?
Bill - no, no roadmap discussion in the kbd session.  Not nearly as much 
unexplored territory; not as much important zero-order stuff to be done.
Peter - thinks that we have some flexibility in on the ground;
Bill - wants to explicitly remove two of the keyboard talks; have only one, 
only on day 1.  George/Doug - do you think we should have the standardization 
preso first, or after kbd?
George - just wants std. early, before most of the conf.
Doug - agrees.  Still have some limitations, though some will be "look to the 
future", but that is aside from the standards themselves.  Maybe having some 
distinction up front.
Janina - at least a little discussion about where we cross a bright line 
between design & standardization.  Maybe the companies will just take care of 
all of this because of 508 sales or whatever.  But there are areas missing, 
and we should get them named as important work, maybe get funding because of 
that.  Something that will be concensus enough that we can turn it into a 
Earl - in doing that, something that may fall out will have overlap with what 
we're doing; some sort of piggy-back effect we can identify through a futures 
Bill - here's a possibility: it looks like day 1 is shaping up; if we leave 
everything as is up to lunch, then kbd just after lunch, then a 2 hour slot at 
end of day we can do some reflective planning of some kind.  When do y'all 
think we should do the follow-on to George's preso - how we create a living 
standard?  Front-load, or later?
Peter - maybe we should have time to let George's stuff percolate, before we 
do the follow-on to it?
Bill - we have a good slot here, and going to a standard is what we're about. 
  This is a topic the whole working group is interested in.  How do we 
resource that last stage?  Bill & Earl aren't enough to complete that stage.
Alan - isn't that the discussion about testing, complete the spec (day 3 
Bill - but seeking a more general discussion about testing/spec., not just on kbd
Peter - a specific application to kbd I don't think should be on day 1
Alan - the suggestion is a general discussion of building test suites, etc. 
for certification; it would be useful to have it in the context of one of the 
workgroups specifically.  As opposed to a general discussion without that context.
Bill - pretty warm to that suggestion of Alan's - have the disucssion of how 
to implement the standardization process
Alan - that'll do a couple of things: test the docs you have to see if they 
are ready to proceed; what other pieces are we missing that we need?  To do 
that in a general form isn't terribly useful.
Peter - do immediately, while kbd & standardization are fresh in our minds, or 
later in the conf. after time for stuff to percolate in our minds.
Earl - it's probably helpful to have a discussion about what FSG is looking 
for, but I'd like to have some sort of pointer ahead of time.
Alan - if we find the keyboard stuff isn't ready, that's fine - it's simply 
part of the work for 2005.  Each workgroup will need to go through this 
process, will need different resources, etc.
Bill - rather see that as one coherent discussion; a session where everyone is 
present to discuss how we resource our testing and spec. work going forward.
Earl - likes the idea of all the workgroups together to do the brainstorming. 
  Actual work at the workgroup level, but suspecting that there is a certain 
amount of commonality across all of them.
Bill - yes.  Not talking about the technical details, but the fiscal and 
community-building details, to get folks to actively get involved in the details.
Janina - if it is just us, we probably won't get it done; we need to find a 
way to expand.
Alan - but until you've looked at each effort and sized it, how can you ask 
for help?
Bill - but we also don't even know who we would ask for help
Peter - it sounds like it isn't either/or; we've general info for all groups, 
and workgroup-specific stuff which can perhaps best be done after the fact.
Janina - and we're 45 minutes into the meeting, and we need to talk about
Earl - no controversy to swap i/o and kbd, but about how we do the spec. 
Peter - wants to withdraw the "percolate" idea; day 1 afternoon for general 
spec/testing discussion is fine.
Janina - this isn't the last face-to-face; would like to do it at least once a 
year.  Can we continue this disucssion in future calls & on list.
George - will re-post the agenda based on meeting comments.
Janina - why not post it now as DRAFT (with George's comments)
George - have agenda in minutes?
Janina - start a separate page just for this meeting.  Is George now the web guy?
George - yes, has all the passwords
Peter - can we leave the agenda now and talk about the invite?

	Develop Agenda
	Finish Invitee List
	Finalize Invitation Language

Sandy - really like the invite
Doug - are points 2 & 3 somewhat similar? ("agree on" and "identify areas"
Peter - beware some acronyms (e.g. "F/OSS")
Janina - will go through and expand all on first use
Peter - do we want to make any reference to 508 and European accessibilty work 
w.r.t. this standardization effort.
Janina - an oblique ref.
Alan - doesn't come out as real clear
Janina - would you like it stronger
Peter - this is a challenging issue
Janina - reminds her of a missing topic
Earl - we're looking at API stuff that is programatically checkable
Janina - not true; in our charter doc. we've specifically used the 
"guidelines" word pretty liberally
Earl - we have the functional req.
Peter - we don't have to do this in the invitation
Alan - is this a justification for the meeting, for their attendance?
Janina - not so much the meeting as the overall scope of why we're doing this 
work (and so by extrapolation the meeting)
Peter - do you want to remove the whole paragraph?
Alan - no, just remove the sentence starting with "The economic success...". 
The effort stands on its own merit.
Janina - no trouble doing that.
Peter - are we happy with the last, optional, paragraph?
Janina - not an optional paragraph; the "We hope you can join us" is always 
there; the optional paragraph is before that.
Peter - move it into 3rd person "We have limited funds for travel & lodging 
for those who require it", rather than "If you require it, ..."
Alan - is there a policy for how these funds are allocated?
Peter - we need to make that
Janina - is there concensus about dropping the "The economic success..." 
sentence?  ...  No objection heard.  The other wordsmithing is in the close - 
to move that to third person.
Peter - any objections to moving to third person?  ... none heard

Janina - how do we figure out who should get this?
Peter - suggests someone (Janina?) cull the list and send out to a culled 
list; then can always send in a second pass to those who we missed?
Bill - very concerned about how large the list is
Peter - why not have someone (Janina) do a culling draft which is then 
appended to the site
Earl - suggests everyone do a pass and send their lists to Janina for her cull 
Janina - when?  COB Th?  Fri?
Peter - COB Th, then the culled list up Fri, then the announcements out on 
Monday Nov. 1, to give people 2 weeks to reply (Nov. 15 reply deadline).
Janina - yes, and then I'll send the culled list to Peter Monday mornnig for 
posting.  May then ask for some assistance for the optional paragraph (e.g. 
for the maginfication folks)
Peter - when do we expect to have the web page up?  By Monday when the 
announcement goes out?
Janina - George, can we do that?
George - yes.

Janina - do we skip next week?
Peter - yes, skip, or reschedule for later in the week?
George - I have a telephone number
Janina - Great, then we'll keep next week at the usual time, and Janina will 
come in late (and probably Peter not at all).

5. New Business

6. Identify key items for the next agenda.

	We need an 800 number for Next week's call.

7. Adjourn

More information about the Accessibility mailing list